III

In reality, however, the ostentatious impudence we
had to admire in Mr. Brentano, is nothing but a tactical manoeuvre. He
has discovered that the attack on the "lyingly added" sentence has failed,
and that he must seek a defensive position. He has found it; all that has
to be done now is to retreat to this new position.

Already in his first reply to Marx (Documents,
No. 5) Mr. Brentano hints at his intention, though bashfully as yet.
The fatal Times report compels him to do so. This report, it is
true, contains the "notorious", the "lyingly added" passage, but that is
actually beside the point. For since it "fully coincides materially" with
Hansard, it says "the direct opposite of that notorious passage", although
it contains it word for word. Thus it is no longer a question of the wording
of the "notorious passage", but of its meaning. It is no longer a question
of denying the passage's existence, but of claiming that it means the opposite
of what it says.

And Marx having declared in his second reply that lack of time
forces him to end, once and for all, his pleasurable exchange of opinions
with his anonymous opponent, the latter can venture to deal with even greater
confidence with this subject, which is not exactly proper at that. This
he does in his rejoinder, reproduced here as No.
7 of the documents.

Here he claims that Marx attempts to obscure the Times
report, which materially fully coincides with Hansard, and this is in three
ways. Firstly by an incorrect translation of CLASSES WHO ARE IN
EASY CIRCUMSTANCES. I leave aside this point as absolutely irrelevant.
It is generally known that Marx had a command of the English language quite
different from that of Mr. Brentano. But exactly what Mr. Gladstone thought
when he used this expression-and whether he thought anything-it is quite
impossible to say today, 27 years later, even for himself.

The second point is that Marx "simply suppressed" a certain
"relative clause" in the Times report. The passage in question is
previously cited at length in section II, p. 7. By suppressing this relative
clause, Marx is supposed to have suppressed for his readers the fact that
the augmentation of wealth, as shown by the income tax returns, is confined
to classes which possess property, since the labouring classes do not fall
under the income tax, and thus nothing may be learned from the returns
about the increase in prosperity amongst the workers; this does not mean,
however, that in reality the labouring classes remain excluded from the
extraordinary augmentation of national wealth.

The sentence in the Times report runs, in Mr. Brentano's
own translation:

"The augmentation I have described, and the figures of which are based,
I think, upon accurate returns, is entirely confined to classes of property."

The relative clause which Marx so maliciously "suppressed" consists of
the words: "and the figures of which are based, I think, upon accurate
returns". By the persistent, since twice repeated, suppression of these
highly important words, so the story goes, Marx wished to conceal from
his readers that the said augmentation was an augmentation solely of
the income subject to income tax, in other words the income
of the "classes which possess property".

Does his moral indignation at the fact that he had run aground
with "mendacity" make Mr. Brentano blind? Or does he think that he can
make all sorts of allegations, since Marx will no longer reply in any case?
The fact is that the incriminated sentence begins, according to Marx, both
in the Inaugural Address and in Capitol, with the words: "From 1842
to 1852 THE TAXABLE INCOME of the country increased by 6 per cent...
In the eight years from 1853 to 1861, it has ..." etc.

Does Mr. Brentano know another "taxable income" in England apart
from that subject to income tax? And has the highly important "relative
clause" anything at all to add to this clear declaration that only income
subject to income tax is under discussion? Or does he believe, as it almost
appears, that people "forge" Gladstone's budget speeches, make "lying additions"
or "suppress" something in them if they quote them without, à la
Brentano, also providing the reader with an essay on English income tax
in which they "falsify" income tax into the bargain, as Marx proved (Documents,
No. 6),b and as Mr. Brentano was forced to admit (Documents,
No. 7). And when the "lyingly added" sentence simply says that the
augmentation just mentioned by Mr. Gladstone was confined to classes of
property, does it not say essentially the same, since only classes of property
pay income tax? But of course, whilst Mr. Brentano creates a deafening
hullabaloo at the front door about this sentence as a Marxian falsification
and insolent mendacity, he himself allows it to slip in quietly through
the back door.

Mr. Brentano knew very well that Marx quoted Mr. Gladstone as
speaking about "taxable income" and no other. For in his first attack (Documents,
No.3), he quotes the passage from the Inaugural Address, and even translated
TAXABLE as "liable to tax"

If he now "suppresses" this in his rejoinder, and if from now
on until his pamphlet of 1890 he protests again and again that Marx concealed,
intentionally and maliciously, the fact that Gladstone was speaking here
solely of those incomes liable to income tax -- should we now sling his
own expressions back at him: "lying", "forgery", "impudent mendacity",
"simply nefarious"?

To continue with the text:

"Thirdly and finally, Marx attempted to conceal the agreement
between the Times report and the Hansard report by failing to quote
those sentences in which, according to The Times too, Gladstone
directly and explicitly testified to the elevation of the British working
class."

In his second reply to the anonymous Brentano, Marx had to prove that he
had not "lyingly added" the "notorious" sentence, and in addition
had to reject the insolent claim made by Anonymous: in relation to this
point, the only point in question, the Times report and the Hansard
report "fully coincided materially", although the former included the sentence
in question verbatim, and the latter excluded it verbatim. For this, the
only point at issue, it was absolutely irrelevant what Mr. Gladstone had
to say about the elevation of the British working class.

On the other hand the Inaugural Address -- and this is the document
which Brentano accuses of falsifying a quotation -- states explicitly on
p. 4, only a few lines before the "notorious" sentence, that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer (Gladstone), during the millennium of free trade, told
the House of Commons:

"The average condition of the British labourer has improved in a degree
we know to be extraordinary and unexampled in the history of any country
or any age."

And these are precisely the words which, according to Brentano, Marx maliciously
suppressed.

In the whole polemic, from his first retort to Marx in 1872 (Documents,
No.5) down to his introduction and appendix to Meine Polemik, etc.,
1890, Mr. Brentano suppresses, with a sleight of hand which we must on
no account describe as "insolent mendacity", the fact that Marx directly
quoted in the Inaugural Address these Gladstonian declarations about the
unparalleled improvement in the situation of the workers. And in this rejoinder,
which, as already mentioned, remained unknown to Marx up to his death,
and to me until the publication of the pamphlet Meine Polemik, etc.,
in 1890, in which the accusation about the lyingly added sentence was only
apparently maintained, though in reality dropped, and the lyingly added
sentence not only shamefacedly admitted as genuine Gladstonian property,
but also as "speaking for us", i.e. for Brentano -- in this rejoinder a
retreat is beaten to the new line of defence: Marx has distorted and twisted
Gladstone's speech; Marx has Gladstone say that, it goes, the riches of
the rich have grown enormously, but that the poor, the working population,
have at the most become less poor. But in fact Gladstone said, in plain
words, that the condition of the workers had improved to an unexampled
degree.

This second line of defence was pierced by the irresistible fact
that precisely in the incriminated document, in the Inaugural Address,
these same Gladstonian words were quoted explicitly. And Mr. Brentano knew
this. "But what does it matter? The readers" of the Concordia "cannot
check up on him!"

Incidentally, regarding what Gladstone really said, on this we
shall have a few short words to say in a little while.

In conclusion, Mr. Brentano, in the security, first of his anonymity,
and second of Marx's declaration that he has no wish to bother with him
further, indulges in the following private jollity:

"When Mr. Marx finally ends his article by breaking into abuse, we
can assure him that his opponent could desire nothing more than the confession
of his weakness which lies herein. Abuse is the weapon of those whose other
means of defence have run out."

The reader can check for himself the extent to which Marx "breaks into
abuse" in his rejoinder. As far as Mr. Brentano is concerned, we have already
presented some choice bouquets from his attestations of politeness. The
"lies", "impudent mendacity", "lying quotation", "simply nefarious", etc.,
heaped upon Marx's head by all means constitute an edifying "confession
of weakness", and an unmistakeable sign that Mr. Brentano's "other means
of defence have run out".